- 期刊
德福關係的沉思：多向度德福觀構念模式之建構
Contemplation of Morality and Well-Being: Theoretical Construction of Multi-Dimensional Beliefs about Congruent Good
摘要
本文將「道德與幸福如何關聯的信念」稱為「德福觀」。過去心理學之德福關係研究可分為兩類研究典範：幸福理論和正義信念，但都未對德福觀提供有效清楚的分析，因此限縮了理論的發展和應用。本文旨在提出可以更切實地理解人們德福觀的理論。本文首先回顧心理學典範，並進行系統性分析和批判；其次梳理德福論哲學，探討其中的心理結構。本文建構出涵攝德福論哲學，並可以進行研究操作的「多向度德福觀」心理構念模式。此模式將德福觀區分為四個基本構念：內在調和、外在調和、積極調和、消極調和；以及四個複合信念：內在積極調和、內在消極調和、外在積極調和、外在消極調和。「多向度德福觀」構念模式有助於釐清現有理論的混亂不明或矛盾之處，未來可以發展測量工具，並探討德福觀與其他道德心理與行為的關聯與機制，也可進一步在道德實踐與教育上提供實用建議。
並列摘要
The relationship between morality and well-being is a significant topic in moral philosophy, proposed since the inception of Eastern and Western philosophies, and has sparked considerable thought and discussion. This article refers to the "beliefs about how morality and well-being are related" as "beliefs about congruent good" (BCG). Exploring the content of BCG is of great importance, whether from abstract philosophical thoughts or concrete practical applications. In terms of thought, the issue of the morality-well-being relationship involves the nature and criteria of morality and well-being. In terms of application, moral education, well-being education, and public policy often cite the discourse of BCG. Previous psychological research on the relationship between morality and well-being can be divided into two research paradigms: well-being theories and justice beliefs. The well-being theories paradigm attempts to identify the actual relationship between well-being and morality, thereby establishing constructs and collecting empirical data. The justice beliefs paradigm approaches from the perspective of individual subjective beliefs, suspending the issue of the actual relationship between morality and well-being, and exploring the cognitive and psychological mechanisms of justice beliefs. However, this article argues that neither research paradigm has provided an effective and clear analysis of BCG, thus limiting the development and application of the theory. The reason may be that the current psychological research paradigms on the morality-well-being relationship are insufficiently inclusive of the philosophy of BCG, leading to partial or simplified explanations of BCG. The well-being theories paradigm can be further divided into two main approaches: The hedonic well-being perspective and the eudaimonic well-being perspective. These differing viewpoints form two different constructs of well-being: Subjective well-being and psychological well-being. The hedonic perspective emphasizes "subjective well-being," which refers to an individual's subjective experiences and mental states; the eudaimonic perspective emphasizes "psychological well-being," which refers to an individual's objective psychological functions and traits. The hedonic perspective adopts an instrumental relationship stance to explore the relationship between morality and well-being, with the most common research topic being the relationship between altruism and subjective well-being. Supporters of the eudaimonic perspective believe that the ideal state of humans is quite diverse, thus proposing many theories to describe various aspects of psychological well-being, and particularly emphasizing the relationship between virtue and well-being, conducting numerous empirical studies to examine whether there is a positive correlation or causal relationship between the two. This article argues that the eudaimonic perspective on well-being has several shortcomings when exploring the relationship between morality and well-being. First, the eudaimonic perspective is based on the philosophical foundation of virtue ethics, with a specific normative ethical stance that presupposes the "congruence of morality and well-being," making it difficult to explore other directions of BCG. Second, the "virtue" in the eudaimonic perspective, as a core concept of virtue ethics or character strengths, does not entirely equate to "morality," but broadly refers to various domains of excellent attributes. More clearly, in the eudaimonic well-being theory, the meaning of "virtue" is closer to "well-being," which is a necessary component of well-being. Furthermore, although the eudaimonic well-being perspective describes some existing phenomena of congruence between morality and well-being, it does not explore how people interpret the relationship between morality and well-being, including explanations of congruent and incongruent phenomena. Fourth, the eudaimonic well-being perspective defines wellbeing using certain normative standards but finds it difficult to propose a common standard to measure theoretical discrepancies. Compared to the eudaimonic perspective, the hedonic perspective does not presuppose a specific stance on the morality-wellbeing relationship but thus needs to propose theories to explain the unstable relationship between moral behavior and subjective well-being. Justice beliefs include the belief in a just world and supernatural beliefs such as karma. These beliefs all involve the concept of "fair reciprocity": Repaying those who help oneself with kindness, honesty, and cooperation, or distributing benefits to those who deserve them. Conversely, those who violate moral behavior are avoided or punished. These beliefs are reflected in many social interactions, whether in the intuitive preferences exhibited by young children or the moral concepts endorsed by different cultures. In summary, the above beliefs ultimately lead to the congruence of morality and well-being, where "good is rewarded with good, and evil with evil." Although research on justice beliefs can partially describe beliefs about the morality-well-being relationship, it also has shortcomings. First, the belief in a just world describes the simple notion of proportional retribution, but on the one hand, it oversimplifies the consideration of the morality-well-being relationship, failing to further explore the various possible connections between the two; on the other hand, the meaning of "proportional retribution" is broader than "congruence of morality and well-being," encompassing non-moral domains (e.g., work rewards, interpersonal emotions). Supernatural justice beliefs (including beliefs in God and karma) focus on explaining and supporting "congruence of morality and well-being" through supernatural mechanisms, thus emphasizing the nature of the supernatural mechanisms themselves rather than the content of the morality-well-being relationship. For example, beliefs in God view God as personal, omniscient, omnipotent, moralized, monotheistic or polytheistic, strict or lenient; beliefs in karma focus on the operation of karma, such as reincarnation, balancing merits and demerits, but the descriptions of the morality-well-being relationship often remain general concepts. Second, justice beliefs focus only on the moral cognitive aspect of "justice" or "fairness." However, in both ethics and moral psychology, the concept of "justice" is only a part of moral cognition, not encompassing all moral thinking and practice. Furthermore, daily experiences and philosophical thoughts often associate morality with inner well-being states such as peace, harmony, and satisfaction. Since justice beliefs focus on the fairness between external behavior and rewards, they often fail to consider related aspects of BCG. To better understand people's BCG, this article proposes a psychological conceptual model of "multi-dimensional beliefs about congruent good" (MBCG). This model divides BCG into four fundamental constructs: Internal congruence, external congruence, positive congruence, and negative congruence. "Internal congruence" refers to the degree to which one believes in the congruence between morality and internal well-being; "external congruence" refers to the degree to which one believes in the congruence between morality and external well-being; "positive congruence" refers to the degree to which one believes that doing good enhances well-being; "negative congruence" refers to the degree to which one believes that doing evil harms wellbeing. These four fundamental constructs can be further combined into four composite beliefs: Internal positive congruence, internal negative congruence, external positive congruence, and external negative congruence. We believe that the psychological conceptual model of MBCG can not only supplement the deficiencies of existing theories but also explain richer psychological and behavioral phenomena and serve as a reference for practical applications. This article illustrates three issues as examples: MBCG moderates the relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, the integration of multiple moral motivation aspects using MBCG, and MBCG buffering the victim-blaming effect of the belief in a just world. Additionally, we further propose hypotheses about the relationships between MBCG and several psychological or behavioral variables as a theoretical basis for subsequent empirical research to test criterion-related validity. These include morality-related variables: The belief in a just world, moral identity, altruism, moral foundation, moral disengagement, and well-being-related variables: Resilience, forgiveness, and revenge. In summary, the psychological conceptual model of "multi-dimensional beliefs about congruent good" proposed in this article can compensate for the deficiencies of existing theories and more clearly understand people's various beliefs about the relationship between morality and well-being in daily life. Applying the conceptual model of "multi-dimensional beliefs about congruent good" to make inferences can help clarify the confusion or contradictions in existing theories. In the future, measurement instruments for the psychological conceptual model of "multi-dimensional beliefs about congruent good" can be developed, and the relationships and mechanisms between beliefs about congruent good and other moral psyche and behavior can be explored. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of many related psychological and behavioral phenomena and can further offer practical recommendations for moral practice and education.